Does Canon make it's own or are they sourced elsewhere?
The low noise they demonstrate, is it completely due to
the sensor design, or the processing in the camera? By that
I mean that if the sensor is used by other camera companies
(assuming it isn't a proprietary Canon sensor),
could they offer cameras with noise as low as the Canons?
Right now, Canons seem to be leading the field in lowest
noise levels. But the basic "rules" seem to imply that CMOS
sensors should produce more noise than CCD sensors, so that is
why I think Canon's internal image processing must help with this.
-Rich
Pete D - 19 Jul 2005 07:46 GMT
Yes. But we all knew that didn't we??
> Does Canon make it's own or are they sourced elsewhere?
> The low noise they demonstrate, is it completely due to
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> why I think Canon's internal image processing must help with this.
> -Rich
Pete D - 19 Jul 2005 07:46 GMT
Yes. But we all knew that didn't we??
> Does Canon make it's own or are they sourced elsewhere?
> The low noise they demonstrate, is it completely due to
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> why I think Canon's internal image processing must help with this.
> -Rich
Colin D - 19 Jul 2005 11:47 GMT
> Does Canon make it's own or are they sourced elsewhere?
> The low noise they demonstrate, is it completely due to
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> why I think Canon's internal image processing must help with this.
> -Rich
Canon make their CMOS sensor to their own design, also their Digic
processor, and they do not sell these items to any other camera maker.
Colin.
RichA - 19 Jul 2005 22:43 GMT
>> Does Canon make it's own or are they sourced elsewhere?
>> The low noise they demonstrate, is it completely due to
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>Colin.
So much for getting real information on them then. It's much easier
when (like Kodak, Dalsa) they sell to others and the data is freely
available.
-Rich
Lucus - 19 Jul 2005 23:41 GMT
> I think
I doubt that.
Only after I have read and considered your *stuff*.
RichA - 20 Jul 2005 03:05 GMT
>> I think
>
>I doubt that.
>
>Only after I have read and considered your *stuff*.
Uh huh. Sure sounds like another whiny little camera owner
whose gear got slagged.
-Rich